Once labelled Gaming addiction as mental disorder, WHO now recommends playing games amid coronavirus outbreak

[colonel_mortis]

Please remember, no politics on the forum, and all general COVID-19 discussion should be posted ONLY in the COVID-19 thread. I have removed a bunch of off topic posts.

[Kamina]

You can practically be addicted to anything.

 

Not sure why we have to add extra labels unless we're here to diagnose a specific addition.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Kamina said:

You can practically be addicted to anything.

 

Not sure why we have to add extra labels unless we're here to diagnose a specific addition.

That's exactly why they have specific labels in medicine (and psychology is a medical science whether people like it or not), labels are very important to avoid confusion and malpractice.  You wouldn't start treating a gambling addict as if they had an addiction to alcohol just like you wouldn't treat someone with crones the same as you would a celiac,  simply because even though the symptoms can be the same and the area of the body effected can be the same, they are in fact very different problems and require different treatments.  

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

See, that's more of my problem with labeling them as addictions rather than unhealthy obsessions.   It's also a problem I have seen plenty of mental health professionals have with it too growing up around them, not just that one article.   They may share "some" similarities to a chemical addictions; however, that doesn't mean the activity is the cause of the problem as I've mentioned before.   There can actually be several reasons as to why people get obsessed with gambling, gaming, sports, and so on.   I find it consdenscending to actually label them as addicts.   But, you also have to understand that drugs, like crack, do more to the brain than just simply triggering dopamine.   They actually alter the brain to make you dependent on them, and these activites cannot do that.   Now again, that doesn't mean there isn't an unhealthy problem, but it still seems condescending to label them both as addictions.   Plus, it also seems a tad inaccurate when usually it's an outlining cause that's causing them to become obsessed.   Now, to be fair, casinos/marketing teams/publishers/etc, have been known to try and enable people more prone to these behaviors with outlining issues.   But, it would be a tad more fair to treat these people for the outlining issue.  Here, they don't exactly treat them much different and probably why I'm more vocal about it.

 

An addiction is not exclusively chemical in it's origin.    An addiction is anything that you have an extreme inability to stop.  Chemical dependence is only one form of addiction.

[PineyCreek]

Almost like gaming is meant to distract you from the things that stress you out.

 

Except with the games that stress you out.  We call those a challenge.

[Curufinwe_wins]

24 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

An addiction is not exclusively chemical in it's origin.    An addiction is anything that you have an extreme inability to stop.  Chemical dependence is only one form of addiction.

Also chemical imbalances in neurology are becoming detectable in various addiction disorders....

 

Different sources, not necessarily different (at the very least analogous) responses.

[mr moose]

8 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Also chemical imbalances in neurology are becoming detectable in various addiction disorders....

 

Different sources, not necessarily different (at the very least analogous) responses.

True, that is the biological effect of the addiction, the thing that turns it from a behavioral/environmental condition into biological one.  I think they are still debating the horse and cart on that one though.  I have read the odd paper that suggests those imbalances happen as a result of the addiction, not so much the cause. But I am not willing to claim that as a bold fact. 

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, it's unhealthy obsessive behaviors because usually it's something causing it, the activity itself is not usually why these people become obsessed with the activity.  With a chemical addiction the drug is causing the "addiction" due to the extra components of what they do to the brain that said activies cannot.  A lot of poor people gamble because they believe it's their only way out of that scenario.  A lot of people with Asperger's, and other people with social issues, become obsessed with gaming because of the social issues related to their developmental or mental issues.  Even if you wanted to say "addiction"  applies to normal people who show obsessive behaviors towards these tasks now you can have people with actual mental and developmental issues being grouped in, and a lot of times in the US, these people wouldn't get diagnosed for Asperger's or social anxiety because of this.

 

 

It's still an addiction,  you are now describing problems within the profession and how they might deal with said issues, not what those issues are.  If doctors are mistreating addictions because they are not taking into account other factors then changing what you call an addiction won't fix that problem.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, it's not just the doctors it's the parents/guardians and corporations here too.  In the US we have problems with diagnoses, corporations being able to run these facilities rather than actual doctors, and politicians/parents and guardians/other groups who want to also blame the activity as an addiction for a plethora of reasons rather than actually finding the true causation.  If they can get away with calling it an addiction then ya they will treat it no different than crack,  or a completely other issue if the patient is lucky, and that's not really beneficial at all to the person with the problem.  It's a real problem here, but not sure about the rest of the world.

 

Again, you are describing a  much bigger and more in depth issue with the system than an issue with the nomenclature of mental illness.   I agree labels can be a problem, but understanding mental health by itself is a much bigger problem and changing what you call something is not going to change the way it is viewed or treated by anyone. professional or not.   If a corporation can run a facility and decide what treatments they are going to administer regardless of the illness then changing the name of the illness will have zero effect.  They will continue to do that and you will just have a different name being used, abused, misunderstood etc.

 

The problem you are describing can only be fixed with better regulation of the industry, better education of the general public and much wider acceptance that mental illness is complex and not something you can just cure or understand after reading a blurb from a company.

 

EDIT: as for the rest of the world, it is different, some places it's much better, other not so much. But definitely different.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Ironically, I do remember at one point a government over in Asia bribing the researches, before it even hit the updated DSM to literally blame the activity.  But, I do mostly agree with you.  As for why I get extra pissed off about the subject is I've literally been a victim of this.  First it was gaming and dbz, according to my adoptive mother and others, that made me socially distant as well as violent.  My adoptive father, thankfully a well respected social worker, knew the bs behind that mindset and got me evaluated.  At first they thought it was bipolar, but he wanted a second opinion and got me tested at the Kennedy Kriger center, and it turned out to be Asperger's Syndrome.  There was a lot more involved that I'd rather not get into, but ya the pmaces you get put in here when showing what they call "activity addictions" are as bad as the corporate drug addiction centers that abuse the patients, won't differentiate them in treatment, and will keep you in there to pocket funding.  A tad off topic, but even our prisons do crap like that and are corporate run as well.

The more I hear about the US system the more there is left to be desired.   Hearing about electric shock treatment for Autism (in very recent times), drug companies having to much control over the medical fields in general and so on.  It scares me how this could happen or be allowed to happen, then I hear about rights and civil freedom and am reminded how much people fear regulation,  which makes me think its a nasty cycle that is snowballing.

 

Here In Australia the vast majority of front line workers in the mental health field are genuine about trying to be as honest and helpful as they can, but we are tied up with severe lack of funding,  fear of litigation and overloaded systems means as soon as someone shows any sign of improvement they are booted out of the system, which inevitably means they go backwards again because they were only just starting to fix themselves and weren't ready to be out cold. 

[Sauron]

16 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

See, that's more of my problem with labeling them as addictions rather than unhealthy obsessions.   It's also a problem I have seen plenty of mental health professionals have with it too growing up around them, not just that one article.   They may share "some" similarities to a chemical addictions; however, that doesn't mean the activity is the cause of the problem as I've mentioned before.   There can actually be several reasons as to why people get obsessed with gambling, gaming, sports, and so on.   I find it consdenscending to actually label them as addicts.   But, you also have to understand that drugs, like crack, do more to the brain than just simply triggering dopamine.   They actually alter the brain to make you dependent on them, and these activites cannot do that.   Now again, that doesn't mean there isn't an unhealthy problem, but it still seems condescending to label them both as addictions.   Plus, it also seems a tad inaccurate when usually it's an outlining cause that's causing them to become obsessed.   Now, to be fair, casinos/marketing teams/publishers/etc, have been known to try and enable people more prone to these behaviors with outlining issues.   But, it would be a tad more fair to treat these people for the outlining issue.  Here, they don't exactly treat them much different and probably why I'm more vocal about it.

Maybe they should use a different word for non-chemical addictions but honestly it seems to me like a very small problem. If we're calling gambling addiction an addiction then the same should go for videogames. "Obsession" in every day vocabulary doesn't have nearly the same impact as "addiction". The latter is better at intuitively outlining what the problem is. Besides the behavior of drug addicts and, say, gambling addicts in relation to their object of desire is often quite similar.

 

Though I should also note that this isn't relevant to what the OP was actually about since the positions the WHO takes on videogames are in no way contradictory.

[ARikozuM]

15 hours ago, mr moose said:

The more I hear about the US system the more there is left to be desired.   Hearing about electric shock treatment for Autism (in very recent times), drug companies having to much control over the medical fields in general and so on.  It scares me how this could happen or be allowed to happen, then I hear about rights and civil freedom and am reminded how much people fear regulation,  which makes me think its a nasty cycle that is snowballing.

 

Here In Australia the vast majority of front line workers in the mental health field are genuine about trying to be as honest and helpful as they can, but we are tied up with severe lack of funding,  fear of litigation and overloaded systems means as soon as someone shows any sign of improvement they are booted out of the system, which inevitably means they go backwards again because they were only just starting to fix themselves and weren't ready to be out cold. 

Both parties have done a marvelous job with framing and meeting in the middle. And yes, Democrats are closet Republicans at this point. The gov't doesn't want to use its powers over patent and trademark because the donor money is too good. 

[Unixsystem]

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

Maybe they should use a different word for non-chemical addictions but honestly it seems to me like a very small problem. If we're calling gambling addiction an addiction then the same should go for videogames. "Obsession" in every day vocabulary doesn't have nearly the same impact as "addiction". The latter is better at intuitively outlining what the problem is. Besides the behavior of drug addicts and, say, gambling addicts in relation to their object of desire is often quite similar.

 

Though I should also note that this isn't relevant to what the OP was actually about since the positions the WHO takes on videogames are in no way contradictory.

I'd question the point to having a different diagnosis for any potential "addictive" hobby. Does gambling effect the brain in a radically different way than a gaming addition, or a pornography addiction, or any other hobby that people can take too far? Is the treatment radically different in each case? 

 

It seems like in all cases it has very little to do with the specific outlet into which people are sinking an unhealthy amount of time and more to do with underlying mental health or lifestyle issues that are feeding into a compulsion to do the unhealthy thing. It seems like it'd be a lot simpler and more helpful to have some sort of Voluntary Not-Chemical Addiction diagnosis that could include but not be limited to gaming, gambling, porn, crossword puzzles, etc. 

[Sauron]

17 minutes ago, Unixsystem said:

I'd question the point to having a different diagnosis for any potential "addictive" hobby. Does gambling effect the brain in a radically different way than a gaming addition, or a pornography addiction, or any other hobby that people can take too far? Is the treatment radically different in each case? 

Well, first of all you need to categorize what things are actually known to cause this. Also I guess the treatment would be different. Playing videogames isn't the same as gambling (loot boxes aside )

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, the thing is "gaming addiction", as they call it, is newer to the point you don't have the same amount of treatment as you do for the gambling and pornography addictions.   Are they much different?   Not really.

Maybe so, but you have to consider that this may eventually lead to some regulation on the matter; if you just classify everything under "hobby obsession" then it becomes really hard to regulate one product or another, whereas isolating the most common instances can help on that front.

[Unixsystem]

53 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Well, first of all you need to categorize what things are actually known to cause this. Also I guess the treatment would be different. Playing videogames isn't the same as gambling (loot boxes aside )

The point is that anything can cause it. Anything that is fun, engaging or mentally rewarding can lead to an addictive style of behavior. While treatment may be different, all treatment in this case is going to be some sort of therapy to break the habit, and that sort of treatment is going to vary as much person to person as it does addiction source to addiction source. 

 

A religious person may be able to have a religious intervention to deal with a porn addiction, but for a lot of less religious people that likely wouldn't have an effect (or may actually reinforce the behavior in extreme cases). Some people with gaming disorder may have it because of the gambling aspects, or may have it out of a fear of social ostracisation  of falling behind friends (in an MMO, for example). Or they may just get an adrenaline rush from a competitive shooter that compels them to keep playing. 

 

All of those cases would likely require wildly different interventions in order to get over the addiction, and in all cases it would require a lot of time and effort on the side of a therapist in order to identify the underlying problem, which in almost every case is going to have basically nothing to do with the hobby itself. 

 

If instead the diagnosis was a more generalized "Non-Chemical Addiction", then it would likely help prevent people from getting railroaded into "oh this guy has the video game disorder" and help keep the focus on the underlying mental conditions that are encouraging the behavior in the first place. It also means that you don't need a medical organization to go through and deem every hobby as either addictive or not; there have been stories of people dying after gaming marathons for decades, yet gaming disorder has been a thing for a year now. If the disorder was generalized to include any potential hobby, then maybe some people would have had an easier time being taken seriously and getting treatment years ago. 

[ARikozuM]

The point of this is that it would be handled by a psychologist or psychiatrist. It would massively help consolidate tried treatments for the addiction rather than lumping every miscellaneous addictive issues. Easier to pull all "gaming disorder" treatments rather than scour "general addiction" for your specific case. 

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Unixsystem said:

The point is that anything can cause it. Anything that is fun, engaging or mentally rewarding can lead to an addictive style of behavior. While treatment may be different, all treatment in this case is going to be some sort of therapy to break the habit, and that sort of treatment is going to vary as much person to person as it does addiction source to addiction source. 

 

A religious person may be able to have a religious intervention to deal with a porn addiction, but for a lot of less religious people that likely wouldn't have an effect (or may actually reinforce the behavior in extreme cases). Some people with gaming disorder may have it because of the gambling aspects, or may have it out of a fear of social ostracisation  of falling behind friends (in an MMO, for example). Or they may just get an adrenaline rush from a competitive shooter that compels them to keep playing. 

 

All of those cases would likely require wildly different interventions in order to get over the addiction, and in all cases it would require a lot of time and effort on the side of a therapist in order to identify the underlying problem, which in almost every case is going to have basically nothing to do with the hobby itself. 

 

If instead the diagnosis was a more generalized "Non-Chemical Addiction", then it would likely help prevent people from getting railroaded into "oh this guy has the video game disorder" and help keep the focus on the underlying mental conditions that are encouraging the behavior in the first place. It also means that you don't need a medical organization to go through and deem every hobby as either addictive or not; there have been stories of people dying after gaming marathons for decades, yet gaming disorder has been a thing for a year now. If the disorder was generalized to include any potential hobby, then maybe some people would have had an easier time being taken seriously and getting treatment years ago. 

If generalizing the condition was beneficial they would already do that,  but they are not because addictions are not simple, you can't just lump them all into basic categories.   Psychologist and psychiatrists are the last people who want things to be more complicated than they need to be, they spend their lives trying to simplify mental disorders so their patients can work through them, but making things too simple has the opposite effect.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

But, that doesn't mean they will handle it properly either.  If you simply classify it as a disorder or addiction then you're still potentiality misdiagnosing and mistreating the individual.  For example, if the person has Asperger's treating it as addictive behavior or a disorder of its own isn't going to stop them from going back to it.  Once the person feels the need to shut off the outside world all that treatment would have been for nothing.  Asperger's is also very complex due to it being part of the autism spectrum.  You could argue the same for mental disorders.

They wouldn't be much of a doctor/psychologist if they didn't take into account comorbidity. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, I think the professional shouldn't just deem they have an addiction or a behavioral disorder related to the activity.  They need to be rather open minded with their evaluation rather than jumping to conclusions.  They might even require outside evaluation if it's a bit out of their field.

I really think most are, at least the genuine ones.  I have been a youth worker/social worker in both voluntary and paid capacities for 30 years now (including formal education).  Part of that job has been counseling and referral, working with psychologists,  psychiatrists and pediatricians.  I only ever had problems with the systems and funding more than attitudes.  The last time I spoke to the local doctors they explicitly told me they talk to each other about cases, especially when something is curious or outside their experience. 

 

I know this seems counter to your experience, and maybe it is more country related than anything, but most professionals are not just tick the box professionals.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, my aunt was more of a school social worker before she retired.   She worked for Maryland, DC, and even Virgina schools before taking a job over in Germany then retired and moved back home.   My dad graduated with his master's in the field as a pyschotherapist, forget the full info on his master's as well as his bachelor's, from UMBC back in the late 70s.   He's worked CPS, in jails, in county clinics, and has run one of the longest run and well respected private practices in a part of the state.   The tick the box, bribed types, and so on are a huge problem, not just in my state, but all over the country.   My dad does workshops, has traveled for them, and sees it all the time.   What annoys him more than anything is not only do they do the tick boxing, but like they read through pamphlets because they likely cheated their way through school.   To him it's like watching a kid read a cereal box, and he tends to report them to the proper board to get their license evaluated.   It's not because he has a grudge against the people, but as a professional he has to think of potential malpractice.

That's just sad to read.   How could the system get to that stage?

 

I know the system really drills the enthusiasm out of most professionals, but that is getting ridiculous. In Australia when the system starts to do that to them the professionals tend to move into private practices, either they start their own or they seek employment in an established practice.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Because the US isn't as strict on how people get into medical professional fields as it use to, they ease up on guidelines due to lobbying and bribery by corporations, and so on.   There are even legal loopholes to get around medical fraud, bribery, and so on.   For example, while Vyvanse is one of the better ADHD medications, the company that makes it aka Shire LLC uses legal loopholes to try and get psychiatrists to prescribe it here over alternatives.   They legally can't toss money at the professionals as that's clear bribery; however, they will walk in there with cakes and clocks as legal loophole.   They keep showing up at the county clinic my dad works at outside of his private practice, and sure they take the stuff, but they don't cave to them either.   If Shire were try to argue in court what they were doing then potentially they could get shut down.   But anywho, to get into the field you can be a D student thanks to guidelines set by our government, which is partly thanks to lobbying loan companies, graduate with the lowest requiring degree, go under the wing of someone far more qualified, and get county certification which if you meet the bare minimum isn't that difficult to do anymore thanks to good ol' lobbying and bribery!   My dad tends to be considered strict as he's very strict on people who he has to take under his wing.   From there if they show signs of nothing but potential malpractice he reports them to the board to make sure they never work the field.   Due to the issue with this I am very strict on who I see.   When I was living in that area still I'd only go to the county clinic where he worked and saw one of the better psychiatrists for my medications.   After I moved back north I started going to a practice run by a John Hopkins board member.   The other reason is because with Asperger's Syndrome being rather complex you can't just go to any psychiatrist.   Mine is a newer pyschiatrist under him that, instead of tick boxing or cereal boxing it, calls him in instead incase she has a question or can't answer it herself.   Which is rather responsible on her part considering he's been diagnosing Asperger's for Kennedy Kriger/John Hopkins for decades and is one of the top experts in the area on the matter.   There is a place closer to me that I could go to, but the only one at the place is the first psychiatrist my mom took me to.   He was one of those types, and put me in a mental institution because he didn't wanna listen to me.   His pamphlets and computer were far more credible aka he cereal boxed it.   He literally said I was suicidal when I said I don't have suicidal thoughts.   I did troll some adults the previous year, but according to him I was bipolar and currently suicidal because I was getting annoyed with him not listening to me and kept repeating to him that I wasn't suicidal nor currently felt that way.  To be fair, I didn't respond to being in there well as I was like 11-12 at the time and put in with teens, was being illogical and telling my dad to use his influence to get me out, beat a nurse with a chair out of frustration when he explained to me it isn't that simple, and held myself hostage in the silent room until I got my way.   He fired the psychiatrist since my mom wouldn't while I was in there after learning what he did, and I think reported him to the board of the county where he worked.  Like, they put me in a room originally with a homicidal/suicidal 16 year old who attacked me because I was like the age of his brother or something like that.   That's why the US has a lot of malpractice suits, and even lawsuits in other fields.

shit in bears arse.  The only thing I can say to any of that, is that here companies have no say or knowledge of what medications get prescribed, they can give doctors all the pamplets they want and even give them pens and cakes,  (I even saw a labeled umbrella once),  but the doctors prescribe (in my experience) what he patient needs, and stop if it isn't working.   I hate vyvanse, My son tried it for a while and it just made him more agitated and angry.  I am sure it works for others, but I always warn people to be very careful and know they don't have to stay on a medication just because the doctor said it should work.  If it doesn't feel right or things aren't better try something different.

[Belac F]

[Letgomyleghoe.]

Science